Judge declines to block California antisemitism statute 

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge Wednesday denied an effort by California teachers and parents to block the enforcement of a new state antisemitism statute set to go into effect on Jan. 1, finding the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claims that the law is vague and violates teachers’ constitutional rights.

“Drafting and enacting laws is the exclusive purview of the legislature, and the legislature drafted and enacted AB 715. The court’s limited role is to adjudicate the claims before it and to interpret the plain language of AB 715 as necessary to accomplish that task,” U.S. District Judge Noël Wise said.

The Joe Biden appointee added “the court does not take a position on the merits of the definition of ‘antisemitism’” and that it was enough “a reasonable person reading AB 715 would sufficiently understand what the legislature meant by the word ‘antisemitism.’”

California Assembly Bill 715, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on Oct. 7, will create a new Office of Civil Rights and an antisemitism prevention coordinator within the office to be appointed by the governor.

Under the new law, local educational agencies must investigate and take action if they know or should have known instructional materials were used to violate antidiscrimination laws. Additionally, the law also requires instruction to be factually accurate.

A group of California teachers and parents filed a lawsuit in November to stop the law from taking effect. They argued the definition of antisemitism under the new law is vague and that its enforcement would harm teachers’ constitutional rights if they are not allowed to discuss different viewpoints regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict during instruction.

They also claim the definitions of antisemitism under former President Joe Biden’s national strategy — referenced by AB 715 as “a basis” for California’s Department of Education to use while enforcing the new law — could label any criticism of Zionism or Israel as possible discriminatory language actionable for discipline.

Wise rejected the plaintiffs’ argument of vagueness, writing that they are arguing the law does not define antisemitism and the definition of antisemitism they will be held to under the new law is unjust.

“The dissonance between these two arguments reveals the foundation of teacher plaintiffs’ grievance: They do not like that AB 715 references the Biden National Strategy that in turn references the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] ‘working definition’ of antisemitism,” she said.

The judge also ruled discussions of Israel and Palestine are not facially prohibited under the new law; however, he found the government is allowed to regulate teachers’ speech to align with its educational goals and that the teachers “do not have First Amendment rights while teaching.”

“Assuming teacher plaintiffs’ lessons on Israel and Palestine are subsumed within relevant curricula, it is no different than lessons presented under any government-regulated curricula: When a teacher stands before a classroom imparting those lessons, that teacher speaks with the voice of the government,” she said.

Wise further affirmed the teacher plaintiffs had standing but found their claims are not currently relevant, as AB 715 is not in effect yet.

“Judicial review of AB 715 is premature given the countless factual uncertainties, substantive and temporal, that may unfold in the future,” she said.

Wise additionally ruled the student plaintiffs do not have standing, as their First Amendment rights have not yet been infringed, and dismissed Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta as defendants under sovereign immunity.

Tony Thurmond, California state superintendent of public instruction, is also named as a defendant.

In a statement to Courthouse News, Jenin Younes, national legal director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and an attorney for the plaintiffs, said they “appreciate that Judge Weiss did not rule that it would be acceptable to restrict speech critical of Israel or the political philosophy of Zionism, finding instead that AB 715 does not prohibit such speech.”

He added: “However, the decision is inherently flawed because it failed to account for AB 715’s chilling effect and incorrectly held that teachers have no First Amendment rights, a view that the Supreme Court has never endorsed. We are assessing next steps and will likely appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.”

Representatives for the California Attorney General’s Office and the California Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Follow @mhattridge_